4.  To conserve the peace, unity and tranquillity of the realm. Ehler and Morrall in their book Church and State Through the Centuries p.163 refer to this act as the theoretical coping stone of the legal edifice of the English Reformation.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2WuMyEzani8C&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=To+conserve+the+peace,+unity+and+tranquillity+of+the+realm&source=bl&ots=KyZePMIIF3&sig=fkraSicAWmT4ORopfIANsMLO0DU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiErc-VwOPNAhULAsAKHe14AKkQ6AEILzAD#v=onepage&q=To%20conserve%20the%20peace%2C%20unity%20and%20tranquillity%20of%20the%20realm&f=false

 

The concern of the act is primarily to ascertain the Supremacy of Great Britain and who was to be the Head of this, and this through the word virtue we have discovered, but there is a further concern in that the act was not only designed to remove foreign interference in our affairs then but in my view also forever. This had been the big error of EU law upon us where Henry VIII looked to counteract the Papal interference of Rome, we today are now counteracting the interference into our affairs from not only the Treaty of Rome but the many treaties that followed it, and now the "woke" ideologies of those who run social media platforms.

 

It needs to be understood that there is a question here in relation to the authorship of this act, the act being written with a very high authority of virtue, within the context of the removal of foreign interference in the nation’s affairs so it is my view that whoever wrote this act did so under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

 

On hand he had the King’s demand for supremacy and on the other hand knowing that it was God who needed to be in control. The ideal solution therefore to keep the peace, unity and tranquillity of the realm was to take the Supremacy out of man’s hands and directly into God’s, to God’s on earth in the heart of the Monarch – for it was to be a spiritual covenant with God that was to bring the unity and tranquillity, and so after BREXIT I put forward this needs to be the case again, our last Monarch as Head of State already sworn to this ideal. Will the new Monarch swear the same?

 

To support my argument in relation to authorship, Henry appointed Thomas Cromwell at the end of 1534 as his Vice Regent in spiritual affairs, in effect handing over the powers of supremacy to a spiritual man Thomas Cromwell, he then enacting this supremacy in keeping clergy in line with the ideal of keeping unity in the realm, whilst at the same time ridding the nation of foreign interference. http://www.thereformation.info/thomas_cromwell.htm

​

This role of a clergyman is crucial when it comes to getting our country back in line with its Constitutional Acts, for it clearly seems here that if a clergyman of the Church of England produces the powers he has from this act, and the Coronation Oath, then legally he can bring the country back to its heritage. I am such a clergyman and intend to do exactly this in the role of a Protector of our Constitution.

 

Today, however in Britain we have an Anglican community hopelessly split within its ranks. There is such a need for a Thomas Cromwell today to step forward and return this community back to these reformist roots in not only bringing unity within its own ranks but also to the nation as a whole, for this Act of Supremacy clearly places this obligation on the Canterbury authority.

 

For centuries therefore those moving in this supremacy and that included all clergy who understood the point of the act could claim immunity from prosecution, there being obligation on this clergy to manifest the virtue required to unify and bring peace to the nation. How this is required today!

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/tudor-england/royal-supremacy/

 

Why do I say this? It is clear from history that Henry VIII was a fiery character determined to grasp all authority from a foreign power likely in his own name as King. It is my view that Thomas Cromwell in writing the act knew this but was determined for all time that there be a clergy of the Church of England who would be walking in the holy paths of God. This would involve supporting a Monarch who truly knew the Christian obligation of surrender to a sovereign God, for the way the act is worded did not give supremacy to Henry at all. It gave supremacy to a Monarch so surrendered to God, to a Monarch operating as an empty vessel of God so that it would be God’s ideals coming to the forefront of our society.

​

SCOTLAND

​

HISTORICALLY SCOTLAND HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO THESE BENEFITS even though the nation has an entirely different ecclesiastical background but the roots of these backgrounds remain the same, the Church of England coming out of Luther and then the Oxford Martyrs - Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley whilst Scotland's history came out of Calvin, Knox and the Covenanters, the latter being martyrs and producers of the SOLEMN, LEAGUE AND COVENANT, all of these acts and covenants placing God as the Head of our nations.

​

The coming together of monarchies occurred through King James VI of Scotland crowned at Stirling who also became King James I of England, both countries being brought under THE KING JAMES BIBLE, the Bible presented to the last Queen as the lively oracles of God by the Moderator of the Church of Scotland. This is why this Bible, and this Bible alone must be used in all services of state rather than the Alexandrian counterfeits commonly used today.

 

In effect therefore if my belief is right, and I am convinced it is – it is therefore true to say that Cromwell was looking ahead prophetically towards that ideal. Supporting my view historically is what happened  through Queen Elizabeth I and her Coming Settlement that not only restored this Act of Supremacy to the Statute Book but increased its power, power that needs to manifest strongly today POST BREXIT, for what has happened is the same, we have been released from a foreign power and I believe we now need to give the supremacy back to God, to God in the hearts of believers, the Monarch leading the way as an example to the whole nation to bring peace, unity and tranquillity. Why else would we be having prayers before each Parliamentary Session if that was not the case? By praying first in effect we are putting God first in the law making!

 

Matthew 6:33 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

 

5.  To repress the infiltration of foreign laws and systems into our nation.  Perhaps the most important part of the BREXIT campaign was the fact that foreign powers were implementing their law on an accepting Great Britain. The actual amount of legislation is disputed leading up to about 70% of our laws coming from an un-democratic EU, and now post-brexit we seem again to be under a power, the global elite not allowing Prime Minister Truss her budget!

 

A House of Commons research paper dated 13th. October 2010 was written in an attempt to answer the question as to how much Britain’s legislation was EU or EU influence. Whatever the answer, this Act of Supremacy in effect brings question as to the legality of such an approach, for the injunction against such activity is very clear. Indeed it raises the question as to whether the individuals who in effect have planted on Britain such legislation are in effect by breaking this act guilty of high treason.

​

Vaughne Miller, author of the paper begins with the paper’s objectives:

The former European Commission President, Jacques Delors, predicted in July 1988 that within ten years 80% of economic legislation, and perhaps also fiscal and social legislation, would be of European origin. Since then, Treaty amendments have given the European Union a role in several additional policy areas, which has contributed to a view that national legislatures are becoming ‘Europeanised’, both in terms of the quantity of EU laws and their impact on domestic law- and policy-making. In the UK data suggest that from 1997 to 2009 6.8% of primary legislation (Statutes) and 14.1% of secondary legislation (Statutory Instruments) had a role in implementing EU obligations, although the degree of involvement varied from passing reference to explicit implementation. Estimates of the proportion of national laws based on EU laws in other EU Member States vary widely, ranging from around 6% to 84%. This paper explores various approaches to the question of how much national law is based on or influenced by EU law. 

 

A clear objective is shown here in Jacque Delors prediction and we witness all around us the effect of such an approach, Vote Leavers on street stalls on which I was one witnessed time after time an alienation from Brussels, a feeling that we could no longer vote in Parliamentarians who take up their constitutional role in making laws in the name of British justice for now we were under to un-democratically placed European officials. One could feel the resentment of this, BREXIT bringing an opportunity to return to our own heritage of freedom rather than the effect of past European dictatorships.

 

The paper refers to the European Communities Act 1972 that enabled Government to implement either primary or secondary EU law. The paper brings out how this has affected a further main issue of the BREXIT campaign, one of immigration, immigration seen by many members of the public as being out of control, and even more out of control now in 2022.

 

The majority of views given on our VOTE LEAVE street stalls was a desire for controlled immigration, it being perceived that the matter was out of hand, and that some immigrants who had settled here wanted to take over our way of life rather than embrace the heritage and culture of Great Britain.

 

It was clearly viewed that it should be Parliament who decide such matters, but Parliament it seems from our research had given away such powers. It was also viewed by many that those who settle here should certainly embrace our heritage, justice system and law – indeed it is clear Biblical ethos that our Constitutional Acts are not solely for British people but for all, and those willing to embrace them should be made welcome in our nation, there being clear concern however on how far our services could take un-controlled immigration, our services breaking down.

 

In Great Britain however we have traditionally embraced our Commonwealth after Empire Days and equal partners in a covenantal relationship clearly precious to the late Monarch, so by voting BREXIT Great Britain in no way was voting to be isolationist, quite the contrary but to be part of an open trading world, sharing our experiences and supporting one another for mutual benefit. Indeed, the Christian faith that is at the root of our Constitutional Acts is open and embracing to all.

 

Isaiah 56:6-7 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him,
and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants,
every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

7 even them will I bring to my holy mountain,
and make them joyful in my house of prayer:
their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar;
for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

 

What was found to be unacceptable during the referendum however was the control un-elected officials were having suppressing our Parliamentarians from operating under the freedom our own Constitutional acts had given them. For example:

 

The EU’s “Minimum Standards for the Reception of Asylum-seekers” (Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003) was implemented in the UK by a combination of the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2005, the Asylum Support (Amendment) Regulations 2005, changes to the Immigration Rules and reliance on existing legislation. P 23

 

Here we see evidence of an EU Directive having direct influence in the changing of Britain’s immigration rules, a major factor in the BREXIT campaign. Other examples of such influence are given within the paper and since then it is clear the influence has intensified till the British people in effect declared “no more!” It is clear that if our original rules had been kept to, then the country would not be in the mess it is today.

 

Great Britain’s justice system with the Monarch at its head, in the supreme position as clearly shown in the act developed too from the great charter, Magna Carta, 1215. We witness today in each court the crest of the Monarch in supreme position, the Judge representing the Monarch, the decision however coming through fellow peers of the realm. From here came our legal process of Habeas Corpus.

 

"No freeman shall be seized, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or

exiled, or injured in any way, nor will we enter on him or send against him

except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land."

 

Parliament operates in a similar way, the Lords being the upper house under the Monarch, yet elected peers or MP’s put towards the Monarch what these elected MP’s had decided. To move away from this was to move away from a heritage that had served our nation for centuries.

 

The effect has been devastating on our democratic processes under the supremacy of a Monarch who in law is the mouthpiece of God alongside those who are of the same heart.

 

1 Corinthians 14:32 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

 

Over some years now I have exposed examples of European style law decisions alien to that of Magna Carta and the Supremacy given to the Monarch, judges preferring to use alien philosophies of utilitarianism, and perception related to the new politically correct norms that have come out of the change to European law systems based on Corpus Juris. The BREXIT vote has now given opportunity to remind the nation of its obligations under constitutional law, and indeed bring under British justice those who have strayed from the principles of this Act of Supremacy and Magna Carta.

 

Nigel Farage in the Independent of 10th. November 2013 related the use of European Corpus Juris to what it described as Remembrancetide, the time of year the nation particularly remembers those who have fallen in conflict, asking the question in effect as to why they had fallen. Was it for the freedom of our allegiance to the Monarch and all the legal systems that surround and surrounded him or her or for an alien legal system strictly forbidden in the Act of Supremacy? In the article is a quote from the Royal British Legion in relation as to why our heroes fell. The answer, for our freedom.

 

Farage continues; Freedom, liberty and justice are something I think the left of politics and the media have completely wrong. In a flurry of “isms” they have closed in on free speech, on the right of protest and demonstration, and clamped down on opposition to certain views. But nowhere do I think they have it more wrong than the creeping harmonisation of EU justice and home affairs.

 

We can witness ourselves the overwhelming takeover of philosophies alien to our Christian heritage and Constitution with the EU motivated state before BREXIT, chasing those upholding our own Constitutional history and passion. The Constitution Keepers website gives example of this from a judge over-ruling a House of Lords Edict in the name of utilitarianism. It is clear that now some years after BREXIT that successive governments have not sufficiently removed the influence of years in the EU. The Scottish Heritage Party will address this and make SCOTLAND, SCOTLAND again away from the modernist ideologies of the EU and the global elite.

 

In fighting for our freedom having sworn an oath of allegiance to the Monarch as Supreme Head, it is very clear our fallen heroes had not only died for our freedom but also to maintain the sovereignty of our legal and political systems that had come out of Magna Carta and this Act of Supremacy and indeed in the BREXIT campaign it was at the end of the day the key issue.

 

Pre BREXIT on the 22nd February 2016 David Jones MP asked the Prime Minister the following question in the House of Commons:

 

In his statement, the Prime Minister observed that leaving the EU might briefly make us feel more sovereign. Does he not accept that for many hon. Members, the issue of parliamentary sovereignty will be the central one of the debate in which we are about to engage—namely, that so long as we are subject to the fiat of the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, we will not be truly sovereign, …….

 

Correct in bringing up the issue of sovereignty to the Prime Minister David Jones MP was in my view looking to protect and embrace all that has been precious to us for centuries, for a remain vote was clearly going to lose in time all that our fallen heroes had fought for. In examining the hope for our country under “Remain” Bill Cash MP, Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee had previously stated on 4th. February 2016:

 

Does my right hon. Friend agree that even if the expression “ever closer union” is taken out in respect of the United Kingdom, that will not change one word of any of the existing treaties or laws? We will continue to remain subject to those laws and treaties.

 

Immediately David Jones MP replied:

 

My hon. Friend is entirely right. In fact, the decision acknowledges that the competence conferred by member states on the Union can be modified only by a revision of the treaties following the agreement of all member states. Although the commitment to ever closer union is stated to be symbolic, the reality is that competences have been transferred from the sovereign nations of Europe—Britain included—to the EU and its institutions. The extent of that transfer is very great indeed, as other hon. Members have pointed out.

​

The institutions of the EU have become ever more powerful. So powerful are they that even the proposal to limit benefits to EU migrants and the new rules on child benefit, set out in the draft decision itself, would, it seems, be vulnerable even if agreed by all Heads of Government and Heads of State. 

​

WE IN THE SCOTTISH HERITAGE PARTY WILL ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OPPOSING THE SNP ELITE, THE NON-NATIONALISTIC PARTY LOOKING FOR US TO HAVE STRONGER TIES WITH THE TREATY OF ROME. AS JOHN KNOX DEALT WITH THE SAME ISSUE WITH MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS - WE MUST DO THE SAME!

 

Here is the key to the issue, the stated fact by David Jones MP that competences by EU nations had been transferred from the sovereign nations of Europe making those institutions stronger and stronger, the strength therefore being on the side of alien philosophies and beliefs, those beliefs perverting the cause of our justice system for the years we have in effect been in the EU.

 

Chris Grayling, Leader of the House during the VOTE LEAVE campaign declared to the REMAIN side:

And Britain? What happens to us?

Our influence will diminish.

Our sovereignty will diminish.

Our ability to look after our own national interest will diminish.

There will be no “reformed European Union”, British style.

 

In this piece on the Act of Supremacy with reference to Magna Carta we have established what British style is. It has a supreme Monarch under God and peers who perform and establish our democracy. All this style of centuries was to be lost with a REMAIN VOTE, and would be lost in a Scottish Referendum YES VOTE - for this would not be a vote for an independent Scotland but for a return to foreign control, so in Scotland we are fighting for THE LIFE OF OUR NATION!

 

Our own form of British Justice had for centuries brought freedom, fairness and success to all of our population, Napoleon referring to us as “the nation of shopkeepers”, in others words a nation that was built on small and medium businesses rather than big banks and big multi-national conglomerates of a world order that has suppressed the small to promote the big. The VOTE LEAVE VOTE has changed all that in Britain for we now have put decisions back into the hands of ordinary people as Magna Carta envisaged, ordinary people who traditionally have respected the supremacy of the Monarch under God that truly once more we can be the Land of Hope and Glory our forefathers dreamed of. A vote for the traditional parties will however not bring us the independence the 2016 BREXIT VOTE demands, a new party has to come to the fore and in Scotland THIS IS THE SCOTTISH HERITAGE PARTY!

 

Campaigner Iain Duncan Smith who visited the little village of Rhos On Sea during the campaign to leave had declared:

The heavy burden of EU regulation is particularly hard on the smaller businesses that, all evidence shows, are the best route back into the workforce for the unemployed. Even though the vast majority of these businesses never trade with the EU they are subject to EU red tape at the cost of tens of billions of pounds. Those regulations don’t just mean lower profits for small entrepreneurs, they also mean fewer new businesses starting up and fewer jobs created.

http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/05/iain-duncan-smith-speech-on-why-the-eu-is-a-force-for-social-injustice-full-text.html

 

On coming to Rhos Iain was passionate to meet with small businesses who now have opportunity to expand, in time take on apprentices to carry on the businesses after present owners have gone on, we are re-establishing our heritage so that we truly can become again, the mother of the free.

 

A.C. Benson’s original lyrics of Land of Hope and Glory give homage to the freedom our laws have brought to the people of Great Britain, a sharp contrast to the aggressively applied rules of Europe that come not from heart but from a dictatorial past that has held populations all over Europe in fear and repression. It is time for newly free Britain to open a hand to our European neighbours and say that with the Supremacy we have in Britain, you too can be free indeed. It is time for our Commonwealth to see Britain as a land that not only has Britain’s Monarch but also theirs developing the Commonwealth into a true common wealth in which skills and talents can be interchanged between sovereign countries that respect our freedom under God.

​

A solution to Northern Ireland still being affected by EU law and protocol would be for the people of the Republic to leave the EU and join as trading partners with Great Britain, that we could trade together on the same stage, the Republic still keeping independence, indeed being more independent for it would be free to make its own laws, and simply enjoy open trading with Britain.